Audit of humanitarian aid in Ukraine<\/h1>\n
Humanitarian aid follows its own rules: it arrives in kind, clears customs, is recognised at an assessed value and is then distributed to people, each of whom has to appear in a register. The donor checks that whole chain and the state looks at whether the aid was used as intended. We test the same chain and issue a report both sides accept.<\/p>\n
![\"Humanitarian](\"\/wp-content\/plugins\/mk-landing\/img\/signing.jpg\")
<\/div>\nA humanitarian aid audit confirms the full chain: receipt and customs clearance, recognition at an assessed value, storage, distribution to beneficiaries and reporting. It differs from a standard grant audit because most transactions are non-cash and the evidence consists of acts, delivery notes and beneficiary registers.<\/p>\n
What is tested at each stage<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\n\nStage 1<\/div>\nReceipt and status<\/b><\/p>\n
The decision recognising the consignment as humanitarian aid, the sender’s documents, declarations, shipping papers and the recipient’s confirmation. We also check that the organisation is entitled to receive such consignments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nStage 2<\/div>\nRecognition and valuation<\/b><\/p>\n
How the aid was taken into the books, at what value and on what basis. For goods in kind this is the most sensitive point: the valuation must rest on a document rather than an approximation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nStage 3<\/div>\nStorage<\/b><\/p>\n
The warehouse, the persons materially responsible, stock counts and the write-off of damaged or expired goods. We check that physical stock agrees with the ledger.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nStage 4<\/div>\nDistribution to beneficiaries<\/b><\/p>\n
Distribution registers, signatures or other proof of receipt, the beneficiary selection criteria and whether they were followed. This is the donor’s main concern: evidence that the aid reached the people it was meant for.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nStage 5<\/div>\nPersonal data<\/b><\/p>\n
Registers contain personal data, so we also look at how they are stored and who has access. Donors increasingly include this in the terms of reference.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
\nStage 6<\/div>\nReporting<\/b><\/p>\n
The donor report, statutory humanitarian aid reporting and the treatment in the organisation’s financial statements. All three have to agree with one another.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n\n\nFindings<\/div>\nWhat we find most often<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n\nValuation without a basis<\/b><\/p>\nGoods recognised at an amount taken from thin air or from someone else’s price list. The valuation should rest on the sender’s documents or on a supported estimate citing its source.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
A register without proof<\/b><\/p>\nThe beneficiary list exists but signatures or other evidence of handover do not. The donor then questions the whole distribution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Warehouse and ledger diverge<\/b><\/p>\nNo stock count was performed or its results were never booked, and the difference surfaces during the audit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Selection criteria not documented<\/b><\/p>\nNo written rules on who receives what. Any distribution then looks arbitrary, even where it was in fact fair.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Write-offs without documents<\/b><\/p>\nDamaged or expired goods written off by order alone, with no act and no committee. A classic finding for both the donor and the state inspector.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Mixed with cash expenditure<\/b><\/p>\nAid in kind and the cash part of the project are kept in one stream without separation, so the donor report cannot be reconciled to the ledger.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Receipt and status<\/b><\/p>\n
The decision recognising the consignment as humanitarian aid, the sender’s documents, declarations, shipping papers and the recipient’s confirmation. We also check that the organisation is entitled to receive such consignments.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Recognition and valuation<\/b><\/p>\n
How the aid was taken into the books, at what value and on what basis. For goods in kind this is the most sensitive point: the valuation must rest on a document rather than an approximation.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Storage<\/b><\/p>\n
The warehouse, the persons materially responsible, stock counts and the write-off of damaged or expired goods. We check that physical stock agrees with the ledger.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Distribution to beneficiaries<\/b><\/p>\n
Distribution registers, signatures or other proof of receipt, the beneficiary selection criteria and whether they were followed. This is the donor’s main concern: evidence that the aid reached the people it was meant for.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Personal data<\/b><\/p>\n
Registers contain personal data, so we also look at how they are stored and who has access. Donors increasingly include this in the terms of reference.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Reporting<\/b><\/p>\n
The donor report, statutory humanitarian aid reporting and the treatment in the organisation’s financial statements. All three have to agree with one another.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n Goods recognised at an amount taken from thin air or from someone else’s price list. The valuation should rest on the sender’s documents or on a supported estimate citing its source.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n The beneficiary list exists but signatures or other evidence of handover do not. The donor then questions the whole distribution.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n No stock count was performed or its results were never booked, and the difference surfaces during the audit.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n No written rules on who receives what. Any distribution then looks arbitrary, even where it was in fact fair.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Damaged or expired goods written off by order alone, with no act and no committee. A classic finding for both the donor and the state inspector.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n Aid in kind and the cash part of the project are kept in one stream without separation, so the donor report cannot be reconciled to the ledger.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nWhat we find most often<\/h2>\n<\/div>\n